Search Results

Search found 35869 results on 1435 pages for 'object context'.

Page 63/1435 | < Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >

• How to decide whether to implement an operation as Entity operation vs Service operation in Domain Driven Design?

  - by Louis Rhys

  I am reading Evans's Domain Driven Design. The book says that there are entity and there are services. If I were to implement an operation, how to decide whether I should add it as a method on an entity or do it in a service class? e.g. myEntity.DoStuff() or myService.DoStuffOn(myEntity)? Does it depend on whether other entities are involved? If it involves other entities, implement as service operation? But entities can have associations and can traverse it from there too right? Does it depend on stateless or not? But service can also access entities' variable, right? Like in do stuff myService.DoStuffOn, it can have code like if(myEntity.IsX) doSomething(); Which means that it will depend on the state? Or does it depend on complexity? How do you define complex operations?

  Read the article

• How to explain OOP to a matlab programmer?

  - by Oak

  I have a lot of friends who come from electrical / physical / mechanical engineering background, and are curious about what is "OOP" all about. They all know Matlab quite well, so they do have basic programming background; but they have a very hard time grasping a complex type system which can benefit from the concepts OOP introduces. Can anyone propose a way I can try to explain it to them? I'm just not familiar with Matlab myself, so I'm having troubles finding parallels. I think using simple examples like shapes or animals is a bit too abstract for those engineers. So far I've tried using a Matrix interface vs array-based / sparse / whatever implementations, but that didn't work so well, probably because different matrix types are already well-supported in Matlab.

  Read the article

• Design pattern and best practices

  - by insane-36

  I am an iphone developer. I am quite confident on developing iphone application with some minimal feature. I would consider myself as a fair application developer but the code I write is not so much structured. I make vey little use of MVC because I dont seem to find places to impose MVC. Most of the time, I create application with viewcontrollers and very few models only. How could I improve the skill for making my code more reusable, standard, easy and maintainable. I have seen few books on design patterns and tried few chapters myself but I dont seem to skip my habit. I know few of them but I am not being able to apply those patterns into my app. What is the best way to learn the design patterns and coding habit. Any kind of suggestion is warmly welcomed.

  Read the article

• Functional programming readability

  - by Jimmy Hoffa

  I'm curious about this because I recall before learning any functional languages, I thought them all horribly, awfully, terribly unreadable. Now that I know Haskell and f#, I find it takes a little longer to read less code, but that little code does far more than an equivalent amount would in an imperative language, so it feels like a net gain and I'm not extremely practiced in functional. Here's my question, I constantly hear from OOP folks that functional style is terribly unreadable. I'm curious if this is the case and I'm deluding myself, or if they took the time to learn a functional language, the whole style would no longer be more unreadable than OOP? Has anybody seen any evidence or got any anecdotes where they saw this go one way or another with frequency enough to possibly say? If writing functionally really is of lower readability than I don't want to keep using it, but I really don't know if that's the case or not..

  Read the article

• How do we keep dependent data structures up to date?

  - by Geo

  Suppose you have a parse tree, an abstract syntax tree, and a control flow graph, each one logically derived from the one before. In principle it is easy to construct each graph given the parse tree, but how can we manage the complexity of updating the graphs when the parse tree is modified? We know exactly how the tree has been modified, but how can the change be propagated to the other trees in a way that doesn't become difficult to manage? Naturally the dependent graph can be updated by simply reconstructing it from scratch every time the first graph changes, but then there would be no way of knowing the details of the changes in the dependent graph. I currently have four ways to attempt to solve this problem, but each one has difficulties. Nodes of the dependent tree each observe the relevant nodes of the original tree, updating themselves and the observer lists of original tree nodes as necessary. The conceptual complexity of this can become daunting. Each node of the original tree has a list of the dependent tree nodes that specifically depend upon it, and when the node changes it sets a flag on the dependent nodes to mark them as dirty, including the parents of the dependent nodes all the way down to the root. After each change we run an algorithm that is much like the algorithm for constructing the dependent graph from scratch, but it skips over any clean node and reconstructs each dirty node, keeping track of whether the reconstructed node is actually different from the dirty node. This can also get tricky. We can represent the logical connection between the original graph and the dependent graph as a data structure, like a list of constraints, perhaps designed using a declarative language. When the original graph changes we need only scan the list to discover which constraints are violated and how the dependent tree needs to change to correct the violation, all encoded as data. We can reconstruct the dependent graph from scratch as though there were no existing dependent graph, and then compare the existing graph and the new graph to discover how it has changed. I'm sure this is the easiest way because I know there are algorithms available for detecting differences, but they are all quite computationally expensive and in principle it seems unnecessary so I'm deliberately avoiding this option. What is the right way to deal with these sorts of problems? Surely there must be a design pattern that makes this whole thing almost easy. It would be nice to have a good solution for every problem of this general description. Does this class of problem have a name?

  Read the article

• Very simple OOP question

  - by Mosty Mostacho

  I was creating and discussing a class diagram with a partner of mine. To simplify things, I've modify the real domain we're working on and made up the following diagram: Basically, a company works on constructions that are quite different one from each other but are still constructions. Note I've added one field for each class but there should be many more. Now, I thought this was the way to go but my partner told me that if in the future new construction classes appear we would have to modify the Company class, which is correct. So the new proposed class diagram would be this: Now I've been wondering: Should the fact that in no place of the application will there be mixed lists of planes and bridges affect the design in any way? When we have to list only planes for a company, how are we supposed to distinguish them from the other elements in the list without checking for their class names? Related to the previous question, is it correct to assume that this type of diagram should be high-level and this is something it shouldn't matter at this stage but rather be thought and decided at implementation time? Any comment will be appreciated.

  Read the article

• C# vector class - Interpolation design decision

  - by Benjamin

  Currently I'm working on a vector class in C# and now I'm coming to the point, where I've to figure out, how i want to implement the functions for interpolation between two vectors. At first I came up with implementing the functions directly into the vector class... public class Vector3D { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D vector1, Vector3D vector2, double factor) { ... } public Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D other, double factor { ... } } (I always offer both: a static method with two vectors as parameters and one non-static, with only one vector as parameter) ...but then I got the idea to use extension methods (defined in a seperate class called "Interpolation" for example), since interpolation isn't really a thing only available for vectors. So this could be another solution: public class Vector3D { ... } public static class Interpolation { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(this Vector3D vector, Vector3D other, double factor) { ... } } So here an example how you'd use the different possibilities: { var vec1 = new Vector3D(5, 3, 1); var vec2 = new Vector3D(4, 2, 0); Vector3D vec3; vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //1 vec3 = Vector3D.LinearInterpolate(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //2 //or with extension-methods vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //3 (same as 1) vec3 = Interpolation.LinearInterpolation(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //4 } So I really don't know which design is better. Also I don't know if there's an ultimate rule for things like this or if it's just about what someone personally prefers. But I really would like to hear your opinions, what's better (and if possible why ).

  Read the article

• Pattern for a class that does only one thing

  - by Heinzi

  Let's say I have a procedure that does stuff: void doStuff(initalParams) { ... } Now I discover that "doing stuff" is quite a compex operation. The procedure becomes large, I split it up into multiple smaller procedures and soon I realize that having some kind of state would be useful while doing stuff, so that I need to pass less parameters between the small procedures. So, I factor it out into its own class: class StuffDoer { private someInternalState; public Start(initalParams) { ... } // some private helper procedures here ... } And then I call it like this: new StuffDoer().Start(initialParams); or like this: new StuffDoer(initialParams).Start(); And this is what feels wrong. When using the .NET or Java API, I always never call new SomeApiClass().Start(...);, which makes me suspect that I'm doing it wrong. Sure, I could make StuffDoer's constructor private and add a static helper method: public static DoStuff(initalParams) { new StuffDoer().Start(initialParams); } But then I'd have a class whose external interface consists of only one static method, which also feels weird. Hence my question: Is there a well-established pattern for this type of classes that have only one entry point and have no "externally recognizable" state, i.e., instance state is only required during execution of that one entry point?

  Read the article

• Liskov principle: violation by type-hinting

  - by Elias Van Ootegem

  According to the Liskov principle, a construction like the one below is invalid, as it strengthens a pre-condition. I know the example is pointless/nonsense, but when I last asked a question like this, and used a more elaborate code sample, it seemed to distract people too much from the actual question. //Data models abstract class Argument { protected $value = null; public function getValue() { return $this->value; } abstract public function setValue($val); } class Numeric extends Argument { public function setValue($val) { $this->value = $val + 0;//coerce to number return $this; } } //used here: abstract class Output { public function printValue(Argument $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); return $this; } abstract public function format(Argument $arg); } class OutputNumeric extends Output { public function format(Numeric $arg)//<-- VIOLATION! { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } My question is this: Why would this kind of "violation" be considered harmful? So much so that some languages, like the one I used in this example (PHP), don't even allow this? I'm not allowed to strengthen the type-hint of an abstract method but, by overriding the printValue method, I am allowed to write: class OutputNumeric extends Output { final public function printValue(Numeric $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); } public function format(Argument $arg) { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } But this would imply repeating myself for each and every child of Output, and makes my objects harder to reuse. I understand why the Liskov principle exists, don't get me wrong, but I find it somewhat difficult to fathom why the signature of an abstract method in an abstract class has to be adhered to so much stricter than a non-abstract method. Could someone explain to me why I'm not allowed to hind at a child class, in a child class? The way I see it, the child class OutputNumeric is a specific use-case of Output, and thus might need a specific instance of Argument, namely Numeric. Is it really so wrong of me to write code like this?

  Read the article

• Examples of Liskov Substitution

  - by james lewis

  I'm facilitating a session next week on the Liskov Substitution Principle and I was wondering if anyone had any examples of violations 'from the trenches'? I'm looking for something other than uncle Bob's rectangle - square problem and the persistent set problem he talks about in A-PPP (although that is a great example). So far I'm using the example of a (very simple) List and an IndexedList as the 'correct' use of inheritance. And the addition of a Set to this hierarchy as a violation (as a Set is distinct; strengthening the pre condition of the Add method). I've also taken this great example and it's solution from this question Both those examples are great but I'm looking for something more subtle and harder to spot. So far I've come up with nothing so if you've got a great, subtle example post it up. Also, any metaphors you've come across that helped you understand LSP would be really useful too.

  Read the article

• SharePoint Client Object Model: Step One

  - by PeterBrunone

  I almost didn't make it out alive.  I followed the instructions in every piece of sample code and every forum post by someone who had no idea why their client OM code wasn't working, and my code still wouldn't get past the page load.  I kept getting "'Type' is undefined" errors when sp.core.js tried to register the SP namespace.As it turns out, you need the help of the default master page (or one like it) to get the object model loaded.  Once I told my sample page to use the default master and modified everything accordingly, it hooked up and ran just fine.Now I can finally get some work done.

  Read the article

• Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

  - by danip

  abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection: Only for single-instance objects?

  - by HappyDeveloper

  What if I want to also decouple my application, from classes like Product or User? (which usually have more than one instance) Take a look at this example: class Controller { public function someAction() { $product_1 = new Product(); $product_2 = new Product(); // do something with the products } } Is it right to say that Controller now depends on Product? I was thinking that we could decouple them too (as we would with single-instance objects like Database) In this example, however ugly, they are decoupled: class Controller { public function someAction(ProductInterface $new_product) { $product_1 = clone $new_product; $product_2 = clone $new_product; // do something with the products } } Has anyone done something like this before? Is it excessive?

  Read the article

• 'module' object has no attribute 'PY2'

  - by ManikandanV

  I am using ubuntu 14.04, was trying to install python-memcache. I have got an error like Downloading/unpacking python-memcached Downloading python-memcached-1.53.tar.gz Cleaning up... Exception: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/basecommand.py", line 122, in main status = self.run(options, args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/commands/install.py", line 278, in run requirement_set.prepare_files(finder, force_root_egg_info=self.bundle, bundle=self.bundle) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/req.py", line 1229, in prepare_files req_to_install.run_egg_info() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/req.py", line 292, in run_egg_info logger.notify('Running setup.py (path:%s) egg_info for package %s' % (self.setup_py, self.name)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/req.py", line 284, in setup_py if six.PY2 and isinstance(setup_py, six.text_type): AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'PY2' Storing debug log for failure in /home/mani/.pip/pip.log I am getting the same error when installing Django-celery, pymongo etc

  Read the article

• Can you point me to a nontrivial strategy pattern implementation?

  - by Eugen Martynov

  We are faced implementing a registration workflow with many branches. There are three main flows which in some conditions lead to one another. Each flow has at least four different steps; some steps interact with the server, and every step adds more information to the state. Also the requirement is to have it persistent between sessions, so if the user closes the app (this is a mobile app), it will restore the process from the last completed step with the state from the previous session. I think this could benefit from the use of the strategy pattern, but I've never had to implement it for such a complex case. Does anyone know of any examples in open source or articles from which I could find inspiration? Preferably the examples would be from a live/working/stable application. I'm interested in Java implementation mostly; we are developing for Java mobile phones: android, blackberry and J2ME. We have an SDK which is quite well separated from platform specific implementations, but examples in C++, C#, Objective-C or Python would be acceptable.

  Read the article

• How did you get good practices for your OOP designs?

  - by Darf Zon

  I realized I have a difficulty creating OOP designs. I spent many time deciding if this property is correctly set it to X class. For example, this is a post which has a few days: http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/8041/how-to-improve-my-factory-design I'm not convinced of my code. So I want to improve my designs, take less time creating it. How did you learn creating good designs? Some books that you can recommend me?

  Read the article

• Make methods that do not depend on instance fields, static?

  - by m3th0dman

  Recently I started programming in Groovy for a integration testing framework, for a Java project. I use Intellij IDEA with Groovy plug-in and I am surprised to see as a warning for all the methods that are non-static and do not depend on any instance fields. In Java, however, this is not an issue (at least from IDE's point of view). Should all methods that do not depend onto any instance fields be transformed into static functions? If true, is this specific to Groovy or it is available for OOP in general? And why?

  Read the article

• Is ORM an Anti-Pattern?

  - by derphil

  I had a very stimulating and interessting discussion with a colleague about ORM and it's Pros and Cons. In my opinion, an ORM is useful only in the rarest cases. At least in my experience. But I don't want to list my own arguments at this time. So I ask you, what do you think about ORM? What are the Pros and the Cons? P.S. I've posted this "question" yesterday on Stackoverflow, but some of the user think, that this should better posted here.

  Read the article

• Is loose coupling w/o use cases an anti-pattern?

  - by dsimcha

  Loose coupling is, to some developers, the holy grail of well-engineered software. It's certainly a good thing when it makes code more flexible in the face of changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, or avoids code duplication. On the other hand, efforts to loosely couple components increase the amount of indirection in a program, thus increasing its complexity, often making it more difficult to understand and often making it less efficient. Do you consider a focus on loose coupling without any use cases for the loose coupling (such as avoiding code duplication or planning for changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future) to be an anti-pattern? Can loose coupling fall under the umbrella of YAGNI?

  Read the article

• Break the object body

  - by Siddharth

  In my game, I want to break the object body creating slicing effect. After research I found that I have to use ray casting but I don't know how to use it. If some one know how to break the physics body then please provide information to me. EDIT : I don't have any logic how to do that in andengine. Only I have some link to do slicing http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2012/03/05/breaking-objects-with-box2d-the-realistic-way/ Yes I have to slice physics body into two parts. My physics body have 2d objects.

  Read the article

• When to decide to introduce interfaces (pure abstract base classes) in C++?

  - by Honza Brabec

  Assume that you are developing a functionality and are 90% sure that the implementation class will stay alone. If I was in this position in Java I would probably not use the interface right now to keep the things simple. In Java it is easy to refactor the code and extract the interface later. In C++ the refactoring is not always so easy. It may require replacing values with smart pointers (because of the introduction of polymorphism) and other non-trivial tasks. On the other hand I don't much like the idea of introducing virtual calls when I am 90% sure they won't be needed. After all speed is one of the reasons to prefer C++ over simpler languages.

  Read the article

• A programming language that does not allow IO. Haskell is not a pure language

  - by TheIronKnuckle

  (I asked this on Stack Overflow and it got closed as off-topic, I was a bit confused until I read the FAQ, which discouraged subjective theoratical debate style questions. The FAQ here doesn't seem to have a problem with it and it sounds like this is a more appropriate place to post. If this gets closed again, forgive me, I'm not trying to troll) Are there any 100% pure languages (as I describe in the Stack Overflow post) out there already and if so, could they feasibly be used to actually do stuff? i.e. do they have an implementation? I'm not looking for raw maths on paper/Pure lambda calculus. However Pure lambda calculus with a compiler or a runtime system attached is something I'd be interested in hearing about.

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Accelerating 2d object collision with other objects [on hold]

  - by Silent Cave

  Making my very first attempt at game programming with SDL/OpenGL. So I made an object Actor witch can move in all four sides with acceleration. And there are bunch of other rectangles to collide to. the image Movement and collision detection alghorythms work just fine by itself, but when combined to prevent the green rectangle from crossing black rectangles, it gives me a kind of funny resault. Let me show you the code first: from Actor.h class Actor{ public: SDL_Rect * dim; alphaColor * col; float speed; float xlGrav, xrGrav, yuGrav, ydGrav; float acceleration; bool left,right,up,down; Actor(SDL_Rect * dim,alphaColor * col, float speed, float acceleration); bool colides(const SDL_Rect & rect); bool check_for_collisions(const std::vector<SDL_Rect*> & gameObjects ); }; from actor.cpp bool Actor::colides(const SDL_Rect & rect){ if (dim->x + dim->w < rect.x) return false; if (dim->x > rect.x + rect.w) return false; if (dim->y + dim->h < rect.y) return false; if (dim->y > rect.y + rect.h) return false; return true; } movement logic from main.cpp if (actor->left){ if(actor->xlGrav < actor->speed){ actor->xlGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xlGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->x -= actor->xlGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x += actor->xlGrav; actor->xlGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->left){ if(actor->xlGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->xlGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xlGrav = 0; actor->dim->x -= actor->xlGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x += actor->xlGrav; actor->xlGrav = 0; } } if (actor->right){ if(actor->xrGrav < actor->speed){ actor->xrGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xrGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->x += actor->xrGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x -= actor->xrGrav; actor->xrGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->right){ if(actor->xrGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->xrGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xrGrav = 0; actor->dim->x += actor->xrGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x -= actor->xrGrav; actor->xrGrav = 0; } } if (actor->up){ if(actor->yuGrav < actor->speed){ actor->yuGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->yuGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->y -= actor->yuGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y += actor->yuGrav; actor->yuGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->up){ if(actor->yuGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->yuGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->yuGrav = 0; actor->dim->y -= actor->yuGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y += actor->yuGrav; actor->yuGrav = 0; } } if (actor->down){ if(actor->ydGrav < actor->speed){ actor->ydGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->ydGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->y += actor->ydGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y -= actor->ydGrav; actor->ydGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->down){ if(actor->ydGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->ydGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->ydGrav = 0; actor->dim->y += actor->ydGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y -= actor->ydGrav; actor->ydGrav = 0; } } So, if the green box approaches an obstacle from up or left, everything goes as planned - object stops, and it's acceleration drops to zero. But if it comes from bottom or right, it enters into obstacles inner space and starts strangely dance, I'd rather say move in inverted controls. What do I fail to see?

  Read the article

• Learning PHP OOP

  - by Ryan Murphy

  I have been coding PHP for about 2 years now and I THINK that I have a very good grasps of the fundamental parts of PHP, i.e. Functions foreach/IF statements sessions/cookies POST/GET Amongst a few others. I want to move on to learning OOP PHP now, so learning how to use classes and making it a really valuable skill. I have 1 requirement, the source must be a respected source that doesn't teach developers bad habits. I have the book: PHP and MySQL Web Development However, as useful as that is I would like an online source. I would like to know from people with experience in OOP PHP, how and where did they learn OOP PHP. Obviously by doing, but I would really appreciate some great resources which help me along the way.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >